wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Barry,

Puma's I bought 6 years ago when my first daughter was born. Sneakers to run in, beat up boots to sled with my kids, slippers so I can keep the thermostat at 64 all day. Though I secretly covet the leopard print sling-backs in the Garnet Hill catalog, I simply cannot justify the expense on my husband's teacher/musician salary and they're rather impractical for a mom of three under six.

Don't judge. I practice what I preach.

Leon #19,
Well done. That was very funny.

Tim Geithner is so sure of confirmation as Treasury secretary, he's organizing an Obama Administration baseball team--the Tax Dodgers.

The governmenet should just declare a bank holiday - Take over; close and dispose of the assets of the bad banks and by default communicate that the rest of the banks are solvent and well run - This has to be done in order for the market to gain confidence and move on. This slow toturous death is had destroyed confidence and is a big emotional drain on the World economy

Gene: Yes, I could see that. It just seemed kind of conflated to me, know what I mean? He could easily have phrased it, "We won't apologize for our democratic ideals" or somesuch. As it was, the phrase encompassed so much, I wonder whether the vagueness was intentional (one person can read it as "you can keep your SUV" while someone else sees it as solely anti-fundamentalism). It's a bit politician-speak.

The Childish Things quote is great, and the original bears repeating:

"When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things."

I Cor. xiii. 11.

Apologize to the world?
It would have been amazing all right...amazingly bad

Good one, Barry...you really showed her.

I totally agree with Gina, the caller. I heard Obama's comment about "giving up childish ways" as our collective national, "I want it all and I want it now" mentality. I missed Obama's line about not apologizing for our way of life. I hope he means our freedoms and creativity and not our Hummers and video games.

I took his "will not apologize for our way of life" to mean our regard for democracy and freedom; and not, in any way, SUVs and similar gluttonies.

Yeah, Gina was right-on. That line felt like pandering to me. From a guy who generally doesn't do that in speeches--or at least does it quite smoothly--it really stuck out. We might not HAVE to apologize, but we're dooming ourselves and everyone else if we don't.

The last caller (gina?) totally nailed it. And reminded me of one thing the speech lacked. I know that he probably couldn't, but it would have been amazing if he had apologized to the world.

Gina:

He also said,

"To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it. "

What about profit-sharing?

A question about the deal between the Treasury and Bank of America. It seems to make sense to avoid the problem of valuing the questionable assets now by agreeing to share losses in the future. Does the deal also include an agreement to share profits if some of the questionable assets prove valuable?

Many of the toxic bonds from the early nineties ended up making money for the financiers that bought them at bargain prices from distressed banks. Is there an opportunity here?

How many pairs of shoes do you own Gina?

Obabma should have an economic meeting with Ron Paul. Agree with the man or not, he is a pragmatic, sensible, honest politician. (did I just say those things in the same sentence?) These Kensyian economists have been destroying this country for too long. How many more bubbles can be created? A paul-obama conversation might just be crazy enough to work.

Yes, why are we so scared of nationalism. Several years of frontier capitalism has brought us to this disastrous impasse. Why not try a different way where there is a social safety net at the expense of the possibility of a few extremely wealthy people?

I mean people buy into the notion if they work hard enough and play the game, just maybe, they can retire early, become rich or own their own business at the expense of taking care of those who cannot compete.

How about a different path for once?

Let's put the question of who is most complicit to rest.

85% of the subprime mortgages that have gone bad were NOT Fannie and Freddie mortgages. Blaming the poor and the push to make them homeowners is overblown. The greater problem is many in middle class took advantage of lower rates and cheap money, the banks who, not only made the loans but encouraged smaller entities to seek people who wanted easy loans, the investment banks who securitized these mortgages in layered instruments that mixed good assets with toxic assets and the rating agencies who rated these securities AAA.

What about the idea of the government opening a new lending agent to grant mortgages to owner occupied homes at values somewhere above current sale prices but below prior amounts owed?

Nobody is mentioning Krugman's assessment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/opinion/19krugman.html?_r=1

All these people were around when these problems started and happened with all their advice and projections and voodoo and they failed and you have them here explaining how to solve the problem. Well I'll tell you how, get rid of these folks. What junk they preach and who cares what their opinions and "solutions" are. Maybe a little socialism would be good. Well, we certainly need oversight.